ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that there are genuine sovereignty-based reasons to object to the Human Rights Act (HRA), and whilst they do not ultimately amount to reasons to repeal the Act, their proponents deserve to have their arguments taken seriously. Stephen Dimelow's overview of parliamentary sovereignty and Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou's analysis of the role sovereignty in relation to the European Court of Human Rights both point to the difficult relationship that the HRA has with existing conceptions of sovereignty. The chapter distinguishes two senses of sovereignty, national sovereignty and parliamentary sovereignty. The HRA compromises both national sovereignty and parliamentary sovereignty, and arguments which begin from either foundation deserve to be treated seriously and engaged with rather than dismissed. It concludes by suggesting that a failure has imperilled the future of the HRA and has contributed to a degradation in the quality of constitutional discourse in the UK.
